Bridget Anne Kelly leaves the Mercer County Courthouse in Trenton with her attorney Michael Critchley (right) following oral arguments in March focused on Fifth Amendment issues in the case of the New jersey Select Committee on Investigation vs. Bridget Anne Kelly and William Stepien.
(Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-Ledger)

Michael Critchley, the lawyer representing Bridget Anne Kelly in the George Washington Bridge scandal, said this evening that a state judge’s ruling that Kelly does not have to turn over documents to a state investigative committee amounts to a crucial vindication of her constitutional rights.

He also again declared Kelly’s innocence, stating that “things taken in isolation,” such as Kelly’s now infamous email, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” can “sometimes be misconstrued.”

Critchley would not explain how Kelly might be innocent of wrongdoing, despite the seemingly damning words in her email, which appear to indicate she was ordering the shutdown of bridge access lanes in a vindictive move aimed at causing traffic nightmares for Fort Lee. But the lawyer did say, “Matters taken out of context can be misconstrued.”

He added, “Bridget Kelly is innocent of any wrongdoing, and whenever the investigations are finally concluded, that will become self-evident.”

Kelly, a 42-year-old former deputy chief of staff to Gov. Chris Christie, is a key figure in the lane-closings scandal, which has enveloped the governor's office. According to a report commissioned by Christie’s office, Kelly and David Wildstein, a former high-ranking official at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, were the two people who orchestrated the lane closings, which caused four days of massive traffic jams in Fort Lee. Many believe the lane closures were done as political retribution directed at Mark Sokolich, the town’s Democratic mayor, after he declined to endorse Christie, a Republican, for reelection.

The controversy has spurned both a state legislative investigation into the bridge incident and a federal investigation being led by U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman.

Just after 4 p.m. today, State Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson issued a 98-page opinion that explained why Kelly and another figure in the scandal, Bill Stepien, the governor's former two-time campaign manager, do not have to comply with legislative subpoenas asking them to turn over records related to the scandal.

The pair has refused to produce subpoenaed documents and other information on the basis that the act of searching for, identifying and turnover over records would violate their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. They also called the committee’s requests a fishing expedition.

“While legislative committees in New Jersey have broad powers … they do not have the authority to abrogate the Fifth Amendment,” Jacobson wrote in her opinion, later adding, “The subpoenas would require compelled testimonial evidence from Ms. Kelly and Mr. Stepien and thus run afoul of defendants' privilege against self-incrimination.”

In an interview with The Star-Ledger, Critchley seized on the judge's opinion, with its many pages and layers of legal reasoning.

In an animated voice, he said of his law firm’s move to deny the subpoena on Kelly’s behalf, while citing her Fifth Amendment protections, “To all those naysayers who are critical of our taking this action to protect Bridget Kelly’s constitutional rights, I suggest they read Judge Jacobson’s opinion as a free tutorial as to what the Fifth Amendment means to all citizens in this country.”

In an equally direct voice, he also said, “People who find themselves under investigation should not be running away from the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, they should be running to it for its protection -- innocent or otherwise.

“When you are confronted with an investigation such as this -- for anyone -- it would be malpractice for an attorney to allow his client to be interviewed (by the legislative committee), because as I say to people, many times in an investigation innocence helps, but it is not always conclusive.

“Because people can misinterpret what you say -- and people can misinterpret what was done. They can misinterpret your words and they misinterpret your actions.”

Critchley also issued a statement to the media this evening via email, in which he praised Jacobson’s ruling on the legal questions tied to the subpoena.

“Judge Jacobson obviously gave very careful consideration to these complex issues,” Critchley wrote. “The decision is thorough and well-reasoned and is a complete rejection of the (Legislative) Committee’s attempt to strip Ms. Kelly of her constitutional rights. We greatly appreciate the rigor and thoughtfulness Judge Jacobson applied to this matter.”